30 argumentation from the ecological point of view. However, the SFP realises that they do not have the
direct means to change practices in the fishery themselves, because they lack a value chain and that is the reason why they collaborate with the business. They realize the FIP does not only include
ecological sustainability, but that it should also lead to benefits for the private sector and communities in order to be effective and therefore they start trying to change the situation from the
business level. For both different actor groups sustainability means that they are looking for a way the fishery can survive and the resource is still healthy, but their respective information
environments are different. This means that even though their motivation to work in a FIP is slightly different due to their differing initial interests – survival of the business versus survival of the natural
resource – they can still work together towards the same goal and within the same project since their perception on improvement is similar.
4.3.2 Continuous Improvement in the BSC FIP
The perception on improvement influences the approach of the BSC FIP participants towards improvement. How did the BSC FIP participants translate their perception on improvement into
objectives within the BSC FIP? Following the concept of CI a clear distinction can be made between long-term goals or system objectives and the short-term goals or operational objectives in the BSC
FIP. The system objective, to reach sustainability, is the overall goal of the BSC FIP. The short-term goals feed into and contribute to the overarching goal of sustainability. The operational objectives
that came forward most prominently during the interviews were the establishment governmental regulation and getting scientific validation for the BSC FIP approach. These two goals were deemed
most important by the BSC FIP participants, but were for the biggest part out of the hands of the BSC FIP participants. They can lobby for these goals and supply information, but the actual action should
come from the government or from scientists. It shows that the BSC FIP is broader than only creating incentives to change through the value chain. The way the operational objectives are formulated
now, the FIP needs a supporting network from outside the direct crab value chain, in this case both scientific and governmental.
System objectives The end goal of the BSC FIP according to all interviewed BSC FIP participants is sustainability. As a
system or long-term objective, it is seen by the interviewees as having a sustainable resource that ensures that the people who are dependent on it can keep their jobs and that people of the next
generation can depend on it as well. Sustainability for the APRI-members means that they can continue their business and that it can be stable for a very long time. The system objective from this
business point of view is thus to keep factories open and to keep people employed and therefore the raw material should be sustained. From the SFP point of view the idea behind sustainability is to
utilize the resource as long as possible for the sake of the species itself and the ecosystem, but since they are partnering with the private sector they also want it for the sake of the business. The
challenge for the SFP is how to combine in practice the ecological target with the target of business and give benefits to both the private sector and the community. The system objective of
sustainability includes finding the balance between utilization of the resource and new recruitment in the crab population.
The system objective of sustainability is a long-term goal, but how long would it take to reach it? The interviewees gave some hopeful estimations about when sustainability would be reached and the
31 BSC FIP would end that ranged from about three to more than ten years. The first answer before that
estimation was mostly that they did not know how long it would take or that it might never end. According to one interviewee the BSC FIP cannot finish, also not after MSC certification, since when
actors are not committed the resource can still collapse and not be sustained. Another interviewee mentioned it probably is an on-going process, but once the BSC FIP gets to a certain point it is
expected that the amount of work and amount of attention that should be given to the project will get less. The notions of CI imply that improvement is a never-ending process. I saw this was partly
reflected in the system objectives of the BSC FIP. The BSC FIP participants expect that most effort needs to be done before a sustainable state is reached and that the effort will get less but should be
maintained once a sustainable state is reached. None of the interviewees mentioned however that higher goals exist after sustainability which could mean that this sustainability is the only goal and
would be the end of the improvement process. FIPs are most often aiming towards MSC certification or towards reaching a level that can result in an
unconditional pass of the MSC standard. According to the interviewed BSC FIP participants MSC certification is not considered a goal, but an additional bonus or reward within the BSC FIP. The main
goal of the BSC FIP is to reach sustainability and if they then also could be certified by the MSC is a bonus. One interviewee stated they possibly want to work towards a sustainability certification, but
whether that is the MSC certificate or another certificate that might come up in the coming years does not matter. Another idea that was put forward was to start aiming for MSC certification on a
small scale in a specific area, since the fishery is spread over many different locations and the circumstances differ per location. This is not yet implemented though.
Operational objectives The operational objectives formulated in the BSC FIP are written down in the BSC FIP work plan. The
conducted MSC pre-assessment delivered guidelines for the implementation of the stages of the improvement tracker, which were integrated in the work plan. From the pre-assessment it followed
that especially the stock status and the management needed attention. This study does not aim to provide an overview of the complete content of the FIP work plan since that can be read in the work
plan itself, but it focuses on the operational objectives which BSC FIP participants broad up during the interviews. They mentioned two key difficulties that according to them should be overcome in
order to reach sustainability. Both these operational objectives regard factors outside of the crab value chain, being governmental involvement and additional scientific research.
The first operational objective came forward during every interview and is the involvement of the Indonesian government in the BSC fishery. According to the interviewees, the influence of the
government is needed to implement, regulate and enforce a fishery management plan. The BSC FIP participants already started to work towards this goal when this research was conducted. They
already delivered most of the input for a fisheries management plan to the government as a stimulation to implement a management plan. The interviewee of the Crab Council expected that a
paradigm shifts needs to take place within the government from focussing on maximizing employment towards sustaining a resource which might take time. APRI-members themselves say
they lack the power and the authority for law enforcement and that is why involvement of the government is needed. While APRI-members are stimulating the government to act they are not just
waiting until the government undertakes action. Instead, the BSC FIP participants mentioned they try to do ‘something’ by making their own agreements and trying to implement these through their
32 value chain. This would be faster than waiting until the government introduces regulations for the
fishery. However, all the interviewees say that the influence of the government is needed to implement, regulate and enforce the fishery management plan. According to the interviewees, to
reach step four of the BSC FIP stages regulations at national level need to be introduced by the government.
A second obstruction to overcome that was indicated was a lack of scientific research on BSC which is resulting in data deficiencies. According to the interviewee of the Crab Council, it is necessary to let
research validate some of the policies recommended or agreements implemented within the BSC FIP, like the minimum size limit which will be introduced later. Therefore, in order to make regulations
that fit the life history of the BSC, a supply of scientific information is needed. Scientists need the time to conduct research and to draw conclusions which can validate policies and can support the
regulations. APRI is actively trying to involve research institutes in the studies to the BSC fishery and keeps trying to put the BSC on the scientific agenda.
If the BSC FIP participants would wait with undertaking actions until the scientific outcomes would be presented, the process towards improvement would be delayed. Therefore they are trying to do
something by undertaking action themselves while waiting for the scientific outcomes of the research. The BSC FIP participants are helping and stimulating the government and scientists to make
choices, while at the same time they are implementing their own agreements even though these are not always scientifically validated yet. The operational objectives on which the BSC FIP participants
themselves focus now are stock-enhancement projects, education and agreements that require a change in the practices in the fishery.
4.3.3 Indicators of improvement
